REPORT DIGEST

ILLINOIS COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD

COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION
FOR THE TWO YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2025

Release Date:  March 17, 2026

FINDINGS THIS AUDIT: 13

CATEGORY:  NEW -- REPEAT – TOTAL
Category 1:  1 -- 1 -- 2
Category 2:  2 -- 8 -- 10
Category 3:  0 -- 1 -- 1
TOTAL:  3 -- 10 – 13

FINDINGS LAST AUDIT: 12

State of Illinois, Office of the Auditor
General
FRANK J. MAUTINO, AUDITOR GENERAL

To obtain a copy of the Report contact:
Office of the Auditor General, 400 West
Monroe, Suite 306, Springfield, IL
62704-9849
(217) 782-6046 or TTY (888) 261-2887

This Report Digest and Full Report are also
available on the worldwide web at
www.auditor.illinois.gov

SYNOPSIS

• (25-1) The Board did not exercise
adequate controls over initiating and
monitoring grant agreements.
• (25-2) The Board’s internal controls over
its receipt processing function were not
operating effectively during the
examination period.
• (25-5) The Board did not maintain
adequate controls over the calculation of
the State’s Career and Technical Education
(CTE) Formula Grant distributed to
community college districts.

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER INITIATING AND
MONITORING GRANTS

The Illinois Community College Board
(Board) did not exercise adequate controls
over initiating and monitoring grant
agreements.

We tested 40 grant agreements in effect
during Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025 between
the Board and various entities representing
33 grant programs.  During our testing, we
noted the following:

• 11 of 40 (28%) grant agreements were not
signed prior to the start of the grant
period.  The grants were signed between 31
and 149 days from grant execution date.
• 1 of 40 (3%) grant agreements did not
contain a provision that all funds
remaining at the end of the grant agreement
or at the expiration of the period grant
funds are available for expenditure or
obligation shall be returned to the State
within 45 days.
• 16 of 40 (40%) grant agreements did not
contain the certification that the funds
shall be used only for the purposes
described in the grant agreement and that
the award of grant funds is conditioned
upon such certification.
• 3 of 40 (8%) grant agreements contained
dates that were inconsistent with the term
dates under the Pre-Award Costs provisions.
• For 2 of 40 (5%) grant agreements, the
financial reports submitted by the grantee
did not contain the certification required
by the grant agreement.
• For 1 of 40 (3%) grant agreements, the
Board did not process the voucher for
distribution of the grant.
• For 19 of 40 (48%) grant agreements, the
grantees either did not provide required
documentation to the Board, the required
reporting did not meet the timeframes and/
or specifications outlined in the grant
agreement, or documentation was not
retained by the Board to demonstrate the
required documentation was received and met
all related requirements.

In addition, we performed testing of unused
grant funds and noted the following:

• Of the 40 grant agreement samples tested
above, there were 27 grant agreements that
closed or ended during Fiscal Years 2024
and 2025 where the Board was a grantor:
-- For one (4%) grant tested, $703 of the
grant was not returned by the grantee to
the Board after the end of the grant
period.
-- For two (7%) grants tested, unused funds
totaling $70,893 were returned by the
grantee to the Board one and 14 days late.

• There were nine grant agreements that
closed or ended during Fiscal Years 2024
and 2025 where the Board was a grantee:
-- For one (11%) grant tested, unused funds
amounting to $4,839 was not returned by the
Board to the grantee after the end of the
grant period.
-- For one (11%) grant tested, unused funds
amounting to $3,233 was returned by the
Board 151 days late. (Finding 1, pages
11-14)

We recommended the Board ensure grant
application and budget deadlines and
agreement start dates allow sufficient time
for approval of grant agreements by all
parties prior to the effective date.  We
further recommended the Board implement and
enforce internal controls to ensure grant
agreements are accurate and contain
required provisions and all reporting
requirements are adhered to by the
grantees.  Finally, we recommended the
Board strengthen its procedures to enforce
the timely return of unused grant funds and
comply with the Grant Funds Recovery Act.

The Board concurred with the finding and
stated it has implemented procedures to
ensure grant applications and budget
timelines provide sufficient time for full
execution of grant agreements prior to the
effective date.  Additionally, the Board
stated that standardized templates,
enhanced monitoring, and improved
procedures have been implemented to ensure
agreements contain required provisions and
that grantee reporting requirements are
met.  Finally, the Board stated it has also
enhanced procedures to ensure the timely
recovery of unused grant funds and
compliance with the Grant Funds Recovery
Act.

RECEIPT PROCESSING INTERNAL CONTROLS NOT
OPERATING EFFECTIVELY

The Board’s internal controls over its
receipt processing function were not
operating effectively during the
examination period.

Due to our ability to rely upon the
processing integrity of the Enterprise
Resource Planning (ERP) System operated by
the Department of Innovation and Technology
(DoIT), we were able to limit our receipt
testing at the Board to determine whether
certain key attributes were properly
entered by the Board’s staff into the ERP
System. In order to determine the operating
effectiveness of the Board’s internal
controls related to receipt processing, we
selected a sample of key attributes
(attributes) to determine if the attributes
were properly entered into the ERP System
based on supporting documentation. The
attributes tested during the receipts
testing were (1) amount, (2) fund being
deposited into, (3) date of receipt, (4)
date deposited, and (5) SAMS Source Code.
In addition, the attributes tested during
the refund receipts testing were (1)
amount, (2) date of receipt, (3) date
deposited, and (4) offset against the
correct appropriation code.

Our testing of receipts noted 27 of 140
(19%) attributes were not properly entered
into the ERP System. In addition, 19 of 28
(68%) and 3 of 28 (11%) receipts tested did
not include any documentation evidencing
the deposit date and date of receipt,
respectively. Hence, we were unable to
determine the accuracy and basis of the
entry of deposit date into the ERP System
nor determine the date of receipt. Finally,
for 3 of 28 (11%) receipts tested, the
incorrect receipt account code was used in
the Receipts Deposit Transmittal Form.
Further, our testing of refund receipts
noted 35 of 140 (25%) attributes were not
properly entered into the ERP System. In
addition, 4 of the 35 (11%) refund receipts
tested did not include any documentation
evidencing the date of receipt. Hence, we
were unable to determine the date of
receipt.

Therefore, the Board’s internal controls
over receipt processing were not operating
effectively.

In addition, the Board’s receipts data did
not document the date on which the payment
was received for 8,883 of 10,679 (83%)
receipts. As such, we were unable to
determine whether the Board deposited the
receipts timely.

As a result of the issues noted, we did not
attempt to test timeliness of the Board’s
remaining 1,796 receipts. (Finding 2, pages
15-16)

We recommended the Board design and
maintain internal controls to provide
assurance its data entry of key attributes
into the ERP System is complete and
accurate.

The Board concurred with the finding and
stated it has taken corrective actions to
strengthen compliance with applicable
statutes by implementing revised procedures
and targeted staff training to ensure
accuracy and completeness of ERP data entry
and supporting records.

WEAKNESS IN STATE CTE GRANT CALCULATION

The Board did not maintain adequate
controls over the calculation of the
State’s Career and Technical Education
(CTE) Formula Grant distributed to
community college districts.

During our testing, we noted the Board’s
basis of allocation for the CTE Formula
Grant for Fiscal Year 2025 was inaccurate.

The allocation methodology used by the
Board is equal to the higher of the most
recent certified hours or the past three
years’ average credit hours.  We found that
the Board incorrectly used the higher of
the 2021 credit hours or the past three
years’ average credit hours instead of the
higher of the 2023 credit hours (the most
recent certified hours) or the past three
years’ average credit hours.  This resulted
in underpayments ranging from $365 to
$53,856 or overpayments ranging from $1,534
to $56,763 to 39 community college
districts.  (Finding 5, pages 22-23)

We recommended the Board implement controls
to ensure accurate documentation is
maintained to support its distribution of
State CTE Formula Grant funds.

The Board concurred with the finding and
stated it has implemented procedures to
ensure allocation workbooks are supported
by documented methodologies, validated
source data, and secondary review.
Management also responded that grant
calculations are now independently verified
prior to final distribution.

OTHER FINDINGS

The remaining findings pertain to voucher
processing weaknesses, monthly
reconciliations, controls over reporting,
contractual and interagency agreements,
enforcing reporting requirements, personal
services, cybersecurity programs and
practices, contingency planning, user
access rights, and Board member vacancies.
We will review the Board’s progress towards
the implementation of our recommendations
in our next State compliance examination.

ACCOUNTANT’S OPINION

The accountants conducted a State
compliance examination of the Board for the
two years ended June 30, 2025 as required
by the Illinois State Auditing Act.  The
accountants qualified their report on State
compliance for Findings 2025-001 and
2025-002.  Except for the noncompliance
described in these findings, the
accountants stated the Board complied, in
all material respects, with the
requirements described in the report.

This State compliance examination was
conducted by Adelfia LLC.

COURTNEY DZIERWA
Division Director

This report is transmitted in accordance
with Section 3-14 of the Illinois State
Auditing Act.

FRANK J. MAUTINO
Auditor General

FJM:EMR